Comments on: Albany Bulb Removal of Safety Hazards

By: admin

admin — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:10:45 +0000

The $27 million referred to is listed in the
Regional Parks Bond Extension Project List as
#29 – Project: Park expansion, restoration and development
Description: $27 million to expand and restore this eight-mile long urban shoreline park adjacent to the East Bay communities of Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, and Richmond. Consistent with the Eastshore State Park General Plan, develop access improvements, restore upland and wetland areas to enhance wildlife habitat, and to complete east shore segments of the Bay Trail.

More about Measure WW – http://www.ebparks.org/node/672

By: Susan Kuchinskas

Susan Kuchinskas — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:46:48 +0000

Don’t forget to vote NO on Measure WW. It’s sad to have to vote against parks and open space in general, but this measure includes $27 million to complete the destruction of the Bulb as we know and love it.

By: J. A.

J. A. — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:54:13 +0000

I am in fierce opposition to the “removal of safety hazards.” All the rebar, the concrete, the rickety bridges and jagged metal sculptures are what make the bulb what it is. Tilden, Caesar Chavez park, and other places are for hikers and dog walkers who want to be in an environment that has no evidence of landfill, just trees, fields and hills. That’s not what the bulb is. It has the amazing feel of a post-apocalyptic city after a few years. There are chunks of walls and foundations, partly buried under earth. Weeds grow all over the place. The little bits of civilization constructed by survivors are scattered throughout the bulb, like the concrete house, the murals, and all the sculptures. You can find an object, huge, made of rusted-out steel and half-submerged in the rocky shore, and say “What the hell is that?”
The bulb needs to remain the mix of rubble, wilderness, and art that it is. Just put an “enter at your own risk” sign or something. How many people impale themselves on rebar or bash their heads in on cement anyway? – a concerned youth, frequent visitor to the bulb

By: Mackenzie Sowers

Mackenzie Sowers — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:21:24 +0000

I am hoping to convince the Waterfront commitee that safety is not necessary, but I suspect I wont succeed. I made the point that people take life at their own risk and suing over an ill maintained sidewalk is quite different than suing over a skate park one built himself, or some risky looking rebar that he realized was probably a bad idea to climb.

I got a whole batch of funny looks for being anti safety. It isn’t something they are used to hearing.

By: Jill

Jill — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Well, it has started – the destruction of what the city calls ’safety hazards’ and what the rest of us call imagination, creativity, freedom of expression and more.
The beautiful bridge which a group of people were building at the far end of the Bulb was taken down and every scrap of wood removed…to be taken to a… landfill perhaps?
And then there is the horrible destruction of the skatepark, which had been providing hundreds of kids, teens and not so young kids with a place to go where they learned what it means to look after a place they had ‘invested’ time and energy in. And have a wild time.

I dunno about you, but I keep hearing that we do not provide enough activities for youngsters – so they did it themselves, they built it and they looked after it, and no-one who fell and scratched themselves went home to mommy and cried.

Social control takes many forms – it’s hard to hear people of my age who used to protest outside city hall in the 60’s and 70’s and now run those same cities, be so willing to crush individual forms of personal expression in our own backyard. Leave the friggin’ landfill alone!